95-0866 & 95-0866

Centrally Assessed Centrally Assessed

Signed 4/17/96

BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION

____________________________________

XXXXX,

Petitioner, : ORDER

v. : Appeal Nos. 95-0866

: and 94-1213

PROPERTY TAX DIVISION OF THE :

UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, :

Respondent. : Tax Type: Centrally Assessed

Centrally Assessed _____________________________________

STATEMENT OF CASE

This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission for an Initial Hearing pursuant to the provisions of Utah Code Ann. §59-1-502.5, on XXXXX. Commissioner Alice Shearer and Administrative Law Judge Jane Phan heard the matter for and on behalf of the Commission. Present and representing Petitioner was XXXXX. Present and representing Respondent was XXXXX.

Petitioner is appealing the market value as established by the Respondent of mining claims located in the XXXXX. Appeal number 94-1213 is Petitioner's appeal of the valuation of the subject property for the tax year XXXXX and Appeal Number 95-0866 is the appeal of the valuation of the subject property for the XXXXX tax year. Respondent had valued the subject property for XXXXX at $$$$$ and for XXXXX at $$$$$. Petitioner asserts that Respondent has overvalued the subject property. Respondent, based on a post hearing appraisal, requests that the value be modified to $$$$$ for each of the XXXXX and XXXXX property tax years.

The subject property consists of portions of twenty-nine mining claims in the XXXXX. They are located on the mountain ridge between XXXXX and XXXXX or in the township of XXXXX. The parties agree that access is limited and the property is very steep, located in the mountains in an area where the mountains rise sharply from the canyon floor. The property is currently zoned F- 20. The parties agree that it is not foreseeable that the subject property would be used for any development or mining in the near future.

In support of his position that the lot was overvalued Petitioner provided a letter from the XXXXX which listed four land transactions in XXXXX. Petitioner pointed out that one of the transactions listed 3.40 acres at a cost of $$$$$ on undevelopable terrain. Petitioner felt that the subject property was not worth more than this value because it was also undevelopable and on steep terrain.

Petitioner explained that the property was very steep, that there was no road access and no possibility of development. For this reason he felt the property was worth very little. Since the list of transactions from the XXXXX provided very little information about each sale Petitioner was allowed two weeks to provide any further information he could obtain concerning these sales.

Petitioner also had concerns about the percentage of his ownership as valued by Respondent. Petitioner had provided information to Respondent supporting his claimed ownership percentages prior to the hearing. Respondent supplied a posthearing certificate of the percentage of ownership based on the information provided by Petitioner. For the claim titled XXXXX, Petitioner had thought he had only a XXXXX ownership and Respondent had revised this percent from XXXXX to XXXXX. However, Petitioner, after making a further investigation, determined that XXXXX was correct.

Respondent's representative stated that the values had been determined by sales prices of other mining claims with similar qualities to the subject properties. He said the Division had developed a list of sales which it used to base values for all similar properties and the subject property was consistently valued as all other similar, undevelopable mining claims. He felt that the comparable sales indicated that even undevelopable property is worth at least $$$$$ per acre. At the time of the hearing he had not prepared an appraisal of the subject property nor did he have the list of sales upon which Respondent had relied to determine value. The Administrative Law Judge requested that Respondent provide to the Commission after the hearing the list of sales upon which the valuation of the subject property had been based.

In his post hearing response, Respondent stated that he was able to contact the XXXXX and obtained significant information concerning the sales provided by Petitioner. The sale of 3.40 acres at a cost of $$$$$ was a trade between XXXXX and XXXXX. XXXXX traded the parcel for a bill it owed to XXXXX. The value on the trade agreement was $$$$$ per acre.

Along with the list of comparables Respondent had relied on to determine the value of the subject property, Respondent presented a post hearing appraisal. The appraisal concluded that the subject property was overvalued for XXXXX but undervalued for XXXXX.

Since Respondent had not prepared the appraisal or provided a copy to the Petitioner prior to the Initial Hearing as was requested in the Prehearing Order, providing it posthearing put Petitioner at a disadvantage because he was unable to cross examine Respondent concerning the appraisal or present any rebuttal information. For this reason the post hearing appraisal will be considered only to the extent it is beneficial to Petitioner.

APPLICABLE LAW

The Tax Commission is required to oversee the just administration of property taxes to ensure that property is valued for tax purposes according to fair market value. (Utah Code Ann. §59-1-210(7).)

Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish that the market value of the subject property is other than that as determined by Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Tax Commission finds that the market value of the subject property for the XXXXX property tax year to be based on the assessment of $$$$$ which is to be reduced to reflect the correct percentage ownership (XXXXX) for the claims XXXXX and XXXXX. The market value for the subject property for XXXXX is $$$$$. The Commission finds the Petitioners's percentage interest in ownerships will be as set out in Respondent's XXXXX letter with the exception of the XXXXX which will be set at XXXXX. This decision does not limit a party's right to a Formal Hearing. However, this Decision and Order will become the Final Decision and Order of the Commission unless any party to this case files a written request within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision to proceed to a Formal Hearing. Such a request shall be mailed to the address listed below and must include the Petitioner's name, address, and appeal number:

Utah State Tax Commission

Appeals Division

210 North 1950 West

Salt Lake City, Utah 84134

Failure to request a Formal Hearing will preclude any further administrative action or appeal rights in this matter.

DATED this 17 day of April, 1996.

BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.

W. Val Oveson Roger O. Tew

Chairman Commissioner

Joe B. Pacheco Alice Shearer

Commissioner Commissioner